Production of more than one morphological type of sperm in a common testis has been documented for a variety of invertebrates, including gastropods, spiders, centipedes, and insects. This unusual phenomenon is difficult to explain by current theory, particularly since available evidence indicates that one sperm type is often incapable of effecting fertilization. In this review we critically examine evidence on the distribution and development of sperm heteromorphisms among insects in light of competing hypotheses for the evolutionary origin, maintenance, and function of a non-fertilizing class of sperm. To date, no single hypothesis, including alternatives which assume non-fertilizing sperm are non-adaptive, or that they provision, facilitate, or compete with fertilizing sperm, has received strong empirical support by any group of insects. The diversity of sperm heteromorphisms suggests that non-fertilizing sperm may have different functions in different clades or even serve multiple functions within a clade. We suggest that insight could be gained from (1) new models for the evolution of sperm polymorphism, (2) comparative studies that focus on multiple traits simultaneously (e.g. sperm number, proportion, length, and remating rate) and utilize clades in which more than one gain or loss of sperm heteromorphism has been documented (e.g. Pentatomidae, Carabidae, or Diopsidae), and (3) experimental studies that exploit individual variation or directly manipulate the composition of the male ejaculate.

When females are inseminated by more than one male (polyandry) sexual selection continues after insemination in the form of sperm competition and cryptic female choice. The sexually-selected sperm hypothesis proposes that, under the risk of sperm competition, additive variation in male traits determining fertilising efficiency will select for female propensity to be polyandrous in order to increase the probability of producing sons with superior fertilising efficiency. Two factors complicate this prediction: sex-biased transmission of male fertilising efficiency traits and sexual antagonism of sex-limited traits, fostered by sex-biased inheritance. Here, we (i) review the evidence that male traits contributing towards fertilising efficiency are heritable through sex-biased mechanisms, and (ii) explore the evolutionary implications for male and female reproductive strategies caused by both sex-biased transmission and sexual antagonism of fertilising efficiency traits. Many male fertilising efficiency traits are heritable through sex-biased mechanisms and may not necessarily increase female fitness. The predictions of the sexually-selected sperm hypothesis change dramatically under these different mechanisms of inheritance of fertilising efficiency traits, and different fitness pay-offs derived by females from the expression of such traits. Both sex-biased control of fertilising efficiency and sexual antagonism may also be important in explaining the maintenance of the genetic variance and selection potential of fertilising efficiency. We propose that a useful approach to test the sexually-selected sperm hypothesis is to combine studies which identify behavioural and physiological mechanisms explaining variation in reproductive success with artificial selection experiments to infer the underlying evolutionary patterns.

Recent reviews of specific topics, such as the relationship between male attractiveness to females and fluctuating asymmetry or attractiveness and the expression of secondary sexual characters, suggest that publication bias might be a problem in ecology and evolution. In these cases, there is a significant negative correlation between the sample size of published studies and the magnitude or strength of the research findings (formally the ‘effect size’). If all studies that are conducted are equally likely to be published, irrespective of their findings, there should not be a directional relationship between effect size and sample size; only a decrease in the variance in effect size as sample size increases due to a reduction in sampling error. One interpretation of these reports of negative correlations is that studies with small sample sizes and weaker findings (smaller effect sizes) are less likely to be published. If the biological literature is systematically biased this could undermine the attempts of reviewers to summarise actual biology relationships by inflating estimates of average effect sizes. But how common is this problem? And does it really affect the general conclusions of literature reviews? Here, we examine data sets of effect sizes extracted from 40 peer-reviewed, published meta-analyses. We estimate how many studies are missing using the newly developed ‘trim and fill’ method. This method uses asymmetry in plots of effect size against sample size (‘funnel plots’) to detect ‘missing’ studies. For random-effect models of meta-analysis 38% (15/40) of data sets had a significant number of ‘missing’ studies. After correcting for potential publication bias, 21% (8/38) of weighted mean effects were no longer significantly greater than zero, and 15% (5/34) were no longer statistically robust when we used random-effects models in a weighted meta-analysis. The mean correlation between sample size and the magnitude of standardised effect size was also significantly negative (rs =−0·20, P<0·0001). Individual correlations were significantly negative (P<0·10) in 35% (14/40) of cases. Publication bias may therefore affect the main conclusions of at least 15–21% of meta-analyses. We suggest that future literature reviews assess the robustness of their main conclusions by correcting for potential publication bias using the ‘trim and fill’ method.

We present the first estimate of the phylogenetic relationships among all 916 extant and nine recently extinct species of bats (Mammalia: Chiroptera), a group that accounts for almost one-quarter of extant mammalian diversity. This phylogeny was derived by combining 105 estimates of bat phylogenetic relationships published since 1970 using the supertree construction technique of Matrix Representation with Parsimony (MRP). Despite the explosive growth in the number of phylogenetic studies of bats since 1990, phylogenetic relationships in the order have been studied non-randomly. For example, over one-third of all bat systematic studies to date have focused on relationships within Phyllostomidae, whereas relationships within clades such as Kerivoulinae and Murinae have never been studied using cladistic methods. Resolution in the supertree similarly differs among clades: overall resolution is poor (46.4% of a fully bifurcating solution) but reaches 100% in some groups (e.g. relationships within Mormoopidae). The supertree analysis does not support a recent proposal that Microchiroptera is paraphyletic with respect to Megachiroptera, as the majority of source topologies support microbat monophyly. Although it is not a substitute for comprehensive phylogenetic analyses of primary molecular and morphological data, the bat supertree provides a useful tool for future phylogenetic comparative and macroevolutionary studies. Additionally, it identifies clades that have been little studied, highlights groups within which relationships are controversial, and like all phylogenetic studies, provides preliminary hypotheses that can form starting points for future phylogenetic studies of bats.

This review summarizes information on filial cannibalism (the act of eating one's own offspring) in teleost fish. Cannibalistic parents can either consume their whole brood (total filial cannibalism), or eat only some of the eggs in the nest (partial filial cannibalism). Offspring consumption has been argued to be adaptive under the assumption that offspring survival is traded against feeding, and that offspring can act as an alternative food source for the parents. The evidence supporting the basic predictions formulated under these assumptions is summarized for both total and partial filial cannibalism. These two forms of cannibalism differ significantly since the former represents an investment only in future reproductive success, whereas the latter can affect both present and future reproductive success. Despite a few inconsistencies in the data from laboratory and field studies, the energy-based explanation appears valid for both forms of cannibalism. Alternative non-energy-based explanations are considered, but they are unable to account for the wide distribution of this behaviour in teleosts. The intersexual conflict arising from attempts of the non-cannibal sex to minimize the cost of filial cannibalism is also discussed, together with the potential effect of this behaviour on the operational sex ratio at a population level.